The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast *MB thread*

[huggy_b]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

Define "drug problem".

How many players need to be implicated before a club can be said to have "a drug problem"?

Is one sufficient? Two? Three? How many?

At what point do the bad choices of a few individuals transfer across to their club as a whole?

When ~20% of your list is implicated by admission of guilt, then I believe thats a problem. Chances are there were more, but we will never know for sure.

Mate, you fought the good fight early, but now its gotten past the point of ridiculous that you are still trying to defend your original position.

 

[scudley]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

This whole issue of drugs in AFL, and of West Coast supposedly being the worst offenders, is a total beat-up.

Rumour and innuendo are no substitute for real evidence, but that hasn't stopped commentators from inflating this issue at every opportunity.

The Footy Show interview with West Coast chairman Dalton Gooding was presented as some kind of massive expose - maybe I missed it, but was anything actually revealed?

Gooding basically admitted their had been some discipline problems at the club, before saying the club wouldn't tolerate any more stuff-ups and that illicit drugs were unacceptable. What was the big revelation here? What else was he going to say? You'd get the same line on drugs and discipline from every chairman in the league.

This whole saga is marked as a beat-up by the complete lack of real information. I'm yet to see a shred of evidence that there is a "drug problem" in the AFL, or at West Coast or any other club.

Notice the way Hutchison kept referring to "a perception back East" that West Coast had a drug problem. That perception was emphasised because Hutchison had no actual evidence to use as a starting point for his questions. A perception - that's what's driving this beat-up.

I love the way commentators use "anecdotal evidence" to build their case. What does that phrase mean in this context? Rumour? Hearsay? In most reporting, that would not be sufficient to drive a story - but in this issue, that's considered a smoking gun.

Craig Hutchison spuriously linked Cousins getting locked up and Kerr assaulting a taxi driver with a supposed drug problem at West Coast. How does that work? Were drugs a factor in either incident?

Then there's the Fletcher incident. If anyone knows what happened in Las Vegas, then let's hear it. It's unsound to just assume it was a drug overdose in the absence of any real information?

Like I said - show me the evidence. Don't just recite unsubstantiated rumours or point to incidents that had nothing to do with drugs.

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what Ben Cousins or any other player does or doesn't ingest in a nightclub. I have no interested whatsoever in this half-baked soap opera that surrounds players' off-field activities. The public appetite for this stuff mystifies me.

I thought most people follow football because they like the spectacle and the contest. Players will be judged on what they do on-field - and rightly so. Why is there such interest in everything else?

That said, the way this story about the "drug problem" has been manufactured needs to be pointed out.

People should demand some facts instead of just lapping up innuendo that feeds their dislike of the Eagles.

there is no doubt what you term as beat ups or rumour and innuendo damaged WCE's brand at the time. If there is an explanation for the fletcher incident in las vagas why dont the club or fletcher come out with the truth? not only will it proove there was no drugs involved but disprooving one rumour would help weaken the others as well without evidence.

wasnt there a taped phone call from a wce player discussing drugs?

 

[ziad]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

there is no doubt what you term as beat ups or rumour and innuendo damaged WCE's brand at the time. If there is an explanation for the fletcher incident in las vagas why dont the club or fletcher come out with the truth? not only will it proove there was no drugs involved but disprooving one rumour would help weaken the others as well without evidence.

wasnt there a taped phone call from a wce player discussing drugs?

I actually have faith in the law enforcement bodies of the country - we do well.

What was the finding on australias biggest corporate criminal? In this area our legislation falls short. In another western country he would have died in prison.

What should happen to those living of the proiceeds of crime?

 

[bundy42]

The greatest 'witch hunt' in Australian sports history led by an agenda driven Vic media....

Innuendo and half wit logic doubles as evidence when deemed necessary.
Standards that if applied on the Eastern seaboard will be quickly met with an INJUNCTION....

 

[Ealesy]

Aaarrrrh you west coast fans and your eastern states conspiracy theories crack me up.

 

[Ant_]

The greatest 'witch hunt' in Australian sports history led by an agenda driven Vic media....

Innuendo and half wit logic doubles as evidence when deemed necessary.
Standards that if applied on the Eastern seaboard will be quickly met with an INJUNCTION....

Ahh you make me laugh Del Piero.

 

[Demon 86]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

What do you know about what goes on at the club?

Do you think that West Coast has a uniquely high instance of drug use among past and present players?

Dear god

Not necessarily this post in particular- more everything you've said so far. Head in the sand? More like:

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

The possibility that Cousins could potentially encourage a young player to smoke crack is not a problem to you?

Potentially?

FFS.

Are we talking about stuff that actually happened or not?

No one is saying WCE is the only club, but naturally they will be scrutinized more due to the number of players implicated.

Well, now we're talking about something else entirely.

You're talking about scrutiny, which is just another way of saying bad publicity.

If you're argument is now merely that West Coast got a lot of bad publicity, then I don't disagree with you.

There was a drug problem at Carlton with Angwin. I admit that freely.

Well, you and I have different ideas about what constitutes a drug problem.

Carlton had players in Angwin and Norman who dabbled and made bad decisions. Those players had judgement problems. To extrapolate that into the club in general having a drug problem is just silly. This thinking might appeal to people who feel compelled to criticise footy clubs, but my view is that individuals are still responsible for their own actions. Clubs don't own players. They're not responsible for their every indiscretion. If they go out and get pissed or get high or get in fights or beat up women, it means the individuals involved have some issues. It's doesn't automatically mean that the club is a cesspit of anti-social behaviour and degeneracy,

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

When ~20% of your list is implicated by admission of guilt, then I believe thats a problem.

How did you arrive at that number? It rings a bell, but just remind me.

And really, it's unfair to lump all people who have ever taken any drugs into the same basket.

Is it really a problem if three or four players take a pill once a year on NYE? Who gives a shit?

I'm not saying that's the extent of the drug use – I'm just making the point that not all cases of drug use are equally as serious or as damaging.

Mate, you fought the good fight early, but now its gotten past the point of ridiculous that you are still trying to defend your original position.

Just saying that without demonstrating anything is inadequate.

If I'm in the wrong, you should be able to tear my argument to strips.

I do enjoy your signature, though.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

there is no doubt what you term as beat ups or rumour and innuendo damaged WCE's brand at the time.

"Damaging the brand" is up there with "bringing the game into disrepute" as one of the most fuzzily-defined catchphrases in the game.

It's an observation that doesn't ever seem to be supported with any kind of evidence, and it doesn't seem to be falsifiable. How would I go about demonstrating that West Coast's brand wasn't damaged? What would I need to do to show that?

It's an ambiguous, unprovable claim that is totally impervious to interrogation. And I still don't even know what it actually means.

wasnt there a taped phone call from a wce player discussing drugs?

Yes.

Nobody is denying that West Coast's players have used drugs. That horse has bolted.

The question is whether incidence of bad behaviour among individuals can be extrapolated into the club having "a drug problem".

I still think that's a real stretch. And really, it's just self-serving mud-slinging from people who want an excuse to lay into West Coast.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

Dear god

Not necessarily this post in particular- more everything you've said so far. Head in the sand? More like:

If my position is so ridiculous, shoot it down.

Instead, you're able only to post funny pictures. They're hilarious, no doubt, but they remain a poor substitution for a decent argument.

 

[EaglesVille]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

"Damaging the brand" is up there with "bringing the game into disrepute" as one of the most fuzzily-defined catchphrases in the game.

It's an observation that doesn't ever seem to be supported with any kind of evidence, and it doesn't seem to be falsifiable. How would I go about demonstrating that West Coast's brand wasn't damaged? What would I need to do to show that?

It's an ambiguous, unprovable claim that is totally impervious to interrogation. And I still don't even know what it actually means.

Yes.

Nobody is denying that West Coast's players have used drugs. That horse has bolted.

The question is whether incidence of bad behaviour among individuals can be extrapolated into the club having "a drug problem".

I still think that's a real stretch. And really, it's just self-serving mud-slinging from people who want an excuse to lay into West Coast.

Nailed it right there ,give hard facts please anti-eagles ,not half truths ,or else shut the phuk up...

 

[Black Flag]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

Carlton had players in Angwin and Norman who dabbled and made bad decisions.

No. Norman was a good kid until Angwin dragged him into his world. This is why it is a CLUB problem. This is the problem I'm trying to explain to you... the problem you don't seem to want to face.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

No. Norman was a good kid until Angwin dragged him into his world. This is why it is a CLUB problem. This is the problem I'm trying to explain to you... the problem you don't seem to want to face.

So if there are two guys who are loose units, the club has a drug problem?

Does Collingwood have a discipline problem because Alan Didak and Heath Shaw have both been naughty boys?

Or do they just have a couple of employees who have made bad decisions?

I don't understand why you are so committed to tarring an entire organisation with the indiscretions of a handful of individuals.

 

[huggy_b]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

How did you arrive at that number? It rings a bell, but just remind me.

8 players on your list at the time admitted to taking illicit drugs when asked. Once or weekly is irrelevant. On a list of 40 odd players, thats near enough 20%.

And really, it's unfair to lump all people who have ever taken any drugs into the same basket.

Generilisations rule our society (accountants are boring, footballers and models are dumb etc), thats life and this is no different. Sometimes life isn't fair.

Is it really a problem if three or four players take a pill once a year on NYE? Who gives a shit?

Um, well its illegal? 1 pill can kill you. Need I go on?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

8 players on your list at the time admitted to taking illicit drugs when asked. Once or weekly is irrelevant. On a list of 40 odd players, thats near enough 20%.

I would say it's entirely relevant how regular and recent the drug use was.

If it was a case of eight players admitting to each taking one pill one NYE five years ago and never touching drugs again, I'd be amazed if anyone considered that "a drug problem".

I'm not suggesting the drug use was that limited – I'm just making the point that those variables are relevant.

Does it make more sense to just lump it all together and assume any player who admitted past drug use was a hopeless junkie?

Generilisations rule our society (accountants are boring, footballers and models are dumb etc), thats life and this is no different. Sometimes life isn't fair.

You're just trying to justify your own lazy argument.

Um, well its illegal? 1 pill can kill you. Need I go on?

Again, you're taking the easy way out.

"Eight players admitted to having used drugs, therefore West Coast had a drug problem". So cut-and-dry, isn't it?

Are you worried that if you scratch the surface or seek any context, sticking the boot into West Coast won't be as easy or as fun?

 

[Demon 86]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

If my position is so ridiculous, shoot it down.

Instead, you're able only to post funny pictures. They're hilarious, no doubt, but they remain a poor substitution for a decent argument.

There is clearly no point in mounting a decent argument- you're somewhat entrenched in your stance that 'West Coast never had a drug problem'

Filling a post with useless hyperbole doesn't make you correct.

Besides- this is the bay.

'West Coke Flogz lolz roflcopter' is as compelling an argument as anything around here!

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Re: The Great Beat-Up: The Drug Problem at West Coast

There is clearly no point in mounting a decent argument- you're somewhat entrenched in your stance that 'West Coast never had a drug problem'

Well, I guess its really a question of what constitutes a drug problem.

I don't think entire clubs should get tarred by the bad decisions of a handful of individuals.

Filling a post with useless hyperbole doesn't make you correct.

Which of my comments are hyperbole?

 

[thecoastingcoaster]

Oh dear.

 

[The Cranium]

FMD, a 2 year old thread.

At the end of the day, you have got rid of 2 players that were "allegely" linked to certain high profile people in Perth, let alone there non comment in a police inquiry, and a certain swim across the Swan.

You still have the aerial whipping mid fielder and no doubt the perscription book came in handy.

Whilst the media report innuendo, Perth is very small and the players make arses of themselves in public. They are noticed, they are known, they are idolised and they carry on as if they are movie stars.

Peopel see, people talk and people text that a certain footballer is in a certain establishment, late and tanked.

I would say West Coast have a cultural issue, where, they put success above all else, you a now reaping what you sowed.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I would say West Coast have a cultural issue, where, they put success above all else, you a now reaping what you sowed.

Is it really so wrong for a footy club to prioritise success?

As a Carlton supporter, you should have an interesting take on that.

 

[Schmucta]

Oh My God.

You cannot be serious.

One of the best threads on any forum I have ever seen hahaha. Some 2 and a half years on and it is still being pointed out an absolute tool started this thread haha

Best laugh I have had in a long long time.

Keep up the great work.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Oh My God.

You cannot be serious.

One of the best threads on any forum I have ever seen hahaha. Some 2 and a half years on and it is still being pointed out an absolute tool started this thread haha

Best laugh I have had in a long long time.

Keep up the great work.

But you're still unable to puncture any of my arguments.

Let's not lose sight of that.

Look at your post - you've got nothing intelligent to say.

 

[Schmucta]

But you're still unable to puncture any of my arguments.

Let's not lose sight of that.

Look at your post - you've got nothing intelligent to say.

Well I don't think I need too, besides the fact it is late, and I have a headache and my cheeks hurt from laughing so much as I read your pathetic attempts at deflecting how much of a tool you were at the start of the thread, and how much bigger of a tool you became throughout the thread, I think that it is quite evident that your arguments were long ago punctured beyond repair.

But let me sleep on it, and I might return tomorrow with a summation of this thread from start to finish, I just need to wipe the tears of pure hilarity from my eyes first...

And it will not have anything of any intelligence within the contents of my reply, as you have undoubtedly shown over a two and a half year time span you neither listen or agree with intelligence so it would be pointless...

But you keep soldiering on sunshine, best laugh I have had in years

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Well I don't think I need too, besides the fact it is late, and I have a headache and my cheeks hurt from laughing so much as I read your pathetic attempts at deflecting how much of a tool you were at the start of the thread, and how much bigger of a tool you became throughout the thread, I think that it is quite evident that your arguments were long ago punctured beyond repair.

But let me sleep on it, and I might return tomorrow with a summation of this thread from start to finish, I just need to wipe the tears of pure hilarity from my eyes first...

And it will not have anything of any intelligence within the contents of my reply, as you have undoubtedly shown over a two and a half year time span you neither listen or agree with intelligence so it would be pointless...

But you keep soldiering on sunshine, best laugh I have had in years

Four paragraphs to advertise the fact you've got nothing.

Why did you bother?